More handpicked essays just for you.
American government structure
Difference between politician and statesman
Effective approaches in leadership and management
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: American government structure
The world today is run in many different fashions that in the end are all fundamentally the same. This concept is known as government, but can be described as a collection of individuals who work together to watch over and lead an association or group, typically seen as a nation. Now this idea of government is vastly universal while the ways in which it is carried out can vary from a few rule changes to having completely opposite views on every small topic that could be discussed. Their are more individualistic forms of government such as Socialism and Democracies, while other styles can be extremely controlling such as Fascism, Communism, and Dictatorships. Leaders of these styles and ways of government can easily be famous or forgotten depending on what major accomplishments they achieved during their rule; more importantly if their actions were caused for the right reasons. When it comes to literary leaders there are two …show more content…
Lao-tzu is proven to be a quite, kind individual who simply wants peace and prosperity for the people of his country, not only economically and protection wise, but spiritually as well. While MAchiavelli has shown that he will take any means necessary to gain power, even if it means to lie, use trickery, or brute force. He does all this while trying to maintain a state of neutral agreement with the surrounding countries to use as little force as possible. Their governments are a peaceful empirical reign and a tyrannical monarchy with the leaders being the perfect face for their style in government. The citizens on both sides can live however they wish, but in Italy are required to call to whatever the leader wants at any particular moment in time. The two while having very similar jobs and backgrounds, have far more differences between them as political rulers of a
In Ancient Greek and Roman times, Romans often made replicas of Greek statues. The Greek were extremely good at art and the Romans wanted to possess the art themselves and thus, created copies of the most famous and beautiful Greek sculptures. However, it seems to be for the better since most Greek statues were created in bronze and were later repurposed for war. The Roman duplicates of these statues remained, due to their stone medium. What there is to ponder, however, is if there are any differences between a Greek and a Roman statue. “The Seated Boxer” is a famous work of Greek sculpture that remained preserved so that we might be able to view it
Lao-Tzu believes in love and trust for the leader whereas Machiavelli strongly believes in fear from the leader. These views are almost complete opposites when paying attention to basics but the more you pay attention there are some similarities to be found, the main one being that they both believe that if the leader is hated then they government will struggle and possibly even fail. These views are almost complete opposites when paying attention to basics but the more you pay attention there are some similarities to be found, the main one being that they both believe that if the leader is hated then they government will struggle and possibly even fail. Another thing that you would be able to compare is that they both genuinely wanted what was best for their people under rule even though their views were complete opposites. Machiavelli said, “It is much safer to be feared than to be loved when one of the two must be lacking,” written in Machiavelli 's Ironic View of History by Salvatore. As far as their views contrast though, it was a very clear and direct that the way they looked at the government was nothing alike. You have one that believes that the only way to rule is to be loved then on the other had you have someone saying that the best kind of ruler is one that is feared, and that being loved isn 't relevant in this case. Lao-Tzu views this way of the government because he feels that if the people are on his side about things, than always fighting against him. Machiavelli though, is more intense on the idea of decision making and thinks that a ruler has to be ruthless no matter what the case, and is willing to make the best decision even if it isn 't the popular
A leader in any tale is an exceptional figure, whether good or evil, they also display tremendous strength above all others be it physical, emotional or mental. Their qualities instill in them a reverence that all of their subjects come to realize and respect. The role of leader is usually first assigned to a different character and upon completion of his journey the main character usually becomes the leader or a figure who has the potential to lead others, the leader is usually a well-known, revered, however they are alone, both figuratively and physically. Beowulf written by an unnamed poet has multiple characters that the reader can identify as leaders, one whom is within the first five lines of the text. Shielf Sheafson, is described as the scourge of many tribes becomes the first Cyng of the Danes. In Sir Gawain the Green Knight also written by an unknown author, features many leaders the greatest of which was King Arthur, followed soon by Sir Gawain and the rest of the Knights of the Round Table. Sir Gawain’s trial is actually a journey to test his leadership girls. At the end, he realizes his error and becomes the leader figure he should be. Finally, Paradise Lost written by John Milton features two leaders, Lucifer and God, though each relies on either end of the section they both in body characteristics of a leader. The leader figure through time has many of the same traits. Each leader carries with them a particular set of characteristics that make them a leader usually through a sacrificing something, there is also a sense of reverence, omnipotence, and solitude.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” (BAM, 2010, p.20) These words were first written down over 2,400 years ago by a Chinese general named Sun Tzu in his famous military strategy treatise known today as The Art of War. These words, in fact the entire book, are just as valid today as they were during Sun Tzu’s lifetime. He was one of the first truly visionary and ethical military leaders in the world. Despite the fact that there is not much known about Sun Tzu today other than his writings, in this essay, I intend to extract his essence from his treatise to prove he was a visionary leader. I will then continue to prove he was also an ethical leader. Finally, I will finish by detailing how his seminal work has inspired me to self-reflect on how I can be a better visionary and ethical leader in the 21st Century Air Force. So, what exactly is a ‘visionary’ leader?
Machiavelli and Martin Luther were both hugely influential and controversial authors who wrote in times of turmoil. Although they had different focuses, Machiavelli's being political and Luther's being religious, they came to many similar conclusions, this may be in part to their reactions to a similar time period. Both authors saw the importance of looking into the past and using history as a tool to learn from. Luther believed more in returning to the past while Machiavelli saw it as a way to use what worked while learning from past mistakes. Their writings are filled with examples from the past to further their arguments. They were especially similar when it came to human free will, the role of God, and on the governing of the secular state. More specifically, both Machiavelli and Luther believed that there was an element of free will that humans could choose to take control of, and therefore determine their own outcomes; although there was an element of either God or Fortune weighing in. Also, when it came to the secular state, although their motives might have been different, they believed in similar actions that needed to be taken. The most interesting dynamic between the two would have to be in relation to the Catholic Church and how both viewpoints create a compellingly different view of the Church.
Throughout Machiavelli’s novel, we encounter several specific instances in which the author gives explicit advice to would be or currently serving princes and rulers of nations. Much of this advice can be easily translated to world leaders in the present day, including the President of the United States. However, some of the advice that Machiavelli gives out are things that often times don’t apply to current world leaders. As I explore the novel, I can’t help but imagine several real life politicians using some of the methods of ruling discussed by Machiavelli, with the true of definition of Machiavellianism being “the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct.”
First, Machiavelli’s method attempts to discard discussion of the “imaginary” political world and instead focuses on “real life” (Machiavelli 48). His end goal is to construct rubric for leaders to follow either to rule and unite (in this case Italy) in the Prince or create a powerful republic in the Discourses. His method is derived from comparing contemporary and historical events to illustrate and substantiate his argument. He is critical of how people interpret history (Machiavelli 83). He still believes that his ability to interpret and compare history is superior. Arguing that his methodological approach doesn’t just “chew” on history but actually “tastes” it (Machiavelli 83). Therefore we can understand that he justifies his method approach as not being akin to most because he possesses a much deeper understanding of history. Throughout his two books using ...
Literature is found in all parts of the world, whether written or oral, and boasts the cultural differences of each area. No matter how different each of the stories is they all have one thing in common: a great leader. Each culture may have slightly different standards of a great leader, but there are a few indispensible traits that make up every leader no matter how big or how small. The story of Beowulf, the fearless warrior, is a fine example of what a great leader is made up of.
Machiavelli’s views were drastically different from other humanists at his time. He strongly promoted a secular society and felt morality was not necessary but stood in the way of a successfully governed state. He stated that people generally tended to work for their own best interests and gave little thought to the well being of the state. He distrusted citizens saying, “In time of adversity, when a state is in need of its citizens, there are few to be found.” In his writings in The Prince, he constantly questioned the citizens’ loyalty and warned for the leaders to be wary in trusting citizens. His radical and distrusting thoughts on human nature were derived out of concern for Italy’s then unstable government. Machiavelli also had a s...
Perhaps the most distinct differences between Machiavelli's and Lao-Tzu's are their beliefs in how a government should be run. Whereas Machiavelli writes about the qualities a prince should have while instilling a totalitarian government, Lao-Tzu strongly believes that one cannot have total control, so everything should run its course.
In The Prince, Machiavelli separates ethics from politics. His approach to politics, as outlined in The Prince, is strictly practical. Machiavelli is less concerned with what is right and just, and instead with what will lead to the fortification of the government and the sustainment of power. Machiavelli believed that a ruler should use any means necessary to obtain and sustain power. He says, “…people judge by outcome. So if a ruler wins wars and holds onto power, the means he has employed will always be judged honorable, and everyone will praise them” (Machiavelli, 55). According to Machiavelli, the ends of an action justify the means (Machiavelli, 55). His motivation for these views in The Prince was the reunification of the Italian city-states (Machiavelli, 78-79). Machiavelli wanted Italy to return to its glory of the Roman Empire (Machiavelli 78-79). Some of the beliefs of Machiavelli could be perceived as evil and cruel, but he found them necessary. Machiavelli was not concerned with making people happy. His purpose was outcome and success, and in his opinion, the only way to be successful was to be realistic. These views of Machiavelli could classify him as one of the earliest modern
Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.
Lao-Tzu’s work, “Tao-Te Ching”, is a philosophical guide to the ideal life and the role government plays. Furthermore, it shows how to live a life of contentment without material possessions. He wrote this as a solution, of sorts, to what was fundamentally wrong with his society. Even though the “Tao” was written thousands of years ago, it is still relevant in modern society; the problems we experience are not unlike his, but on a larger scale. Modern American Society goes completely against Lao-Tzu’s ideology. Specifically, Americans give up too much of their power by allowing the government to make decisions for them, many people become reliant on government subsidies, and they also let materialism
Although they share some similarities in ideology, these parallels are greatly overshadowed by the concepts in which Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli diverge. Their primary distinction lies within their view of human nature and it’s role in governing. Lao-Tzu maintains that if we promote a system of governing to the least possible extent, then human nature should manifest a favorable temperance and dictate the direction of society. In fact, Lao-Tzu asserts numerous attempts to illustrate his point that if leaders, “Stop Trying to control” (§ 57, 35), then there is no desire (§ 37, 24), he dwells in reality (§ 38, 29), and “the world will govern itself.” (§ 57, 35) Although this is an extremely optimistic and beneficial ideal, the main problem with Lao-Tzu’s entire philosophy is exactly that, it can only be viewed as a philosophy. Because it appears under the section entitled “Government,” I...
Through his many years of experience with Italian politics Machiavelli wrote “The Prince”; a how-to guide for new rulers. We are given descriptions of what a leader should do to effectively lead his country. A leader should be the only authority determining every aspect of the state and put in effect a policy to serve his best interests. These interests are gaining, maintaining, and expanding his political power. Machiavelli’s idea is that a ruler should use a variety of strategies (virtues) to secure his power. Machiavelli lists five virtues that a ruler should appear to have; being compassionate, trustworthy, generous, honest and religious. A ruler should possess all the qualities considered good by other people.